Red Bull's technical team have the best developmental record under this set of regulations and a driver dominant when the car is there. They lose their trick devices but adapt. Operationally flawless. Perfect pitstops. Intra-team harmony. Reliability failings only coming from Renault.

Not a fan of the team by any stretch of the imagination, but should they win three titles in a row, it's fully deserved. It's just a little bit boring, but they shouldn't care.

Red Bull brought a new shorter bodywork (inset) configuration to Korea and tested it in a back-to-back comparison with the previous version (main drawing) on Friday and then used it for qualifying and the race. The new, shorter sidepod profile gives a different Coanda route for the exhaust gases and works better in combination with the rear wing's 'double-DRS' system. It highlights Red Bull's capacity to produce new updates at the closing races of the season, with seemingly perfect correlation between CFD, wind tunnel and track.

This drawing shows all the major components of the new double-DRS rear wing recently introduced by Red Bull. Technical chief Adrian Newey has reinterpreted the thinking behind Mercedes' F-duct front wing, but with a much simpler system. The activation is the same - when the DRS is opened and the flap moves up, it opens a hole (where the narrow, curved grey piece is on the inside of the endplate) to channel air through the endplate. Unlike the Mercedes, however, the airflow doesn't go to the front of the car but simply down the inside of the endplate and out past the lower beam wing, shedding drag. It exits in the 15cm central section where there are no rule restrictions on the wing.

Thans a lot. It seems that they have understood the exhaust dynamics sufficiently to go for more coke-body sidepods with a better flow-management while being able to get the hot gas were it should. If this is true we will see the same layout in India.

Here a different angle on the new solution:

Looks quite tidy. BTW I don't think that this new layout makes the DDRS work better - how and why should it?

Took all season but they seem to have recovered from the rule changes, at least in terms of balance. I'd love to see a more detailed analysis on how close and how exactly the current solution attempts to emulate last year's EBD.

I wonder if any team is going to try anything different or radically new next year with no rule changes. Probably not but who knows.

Red Bull's technical team have the best developmental record under this set of regulations and a driver dominant when the car is there. They lose their trick devices but adapt. Operationally flawless. Perfect pitstops. Intra-team harmony. Reliability failings only coming from Renault.

Not a fan of the team by any stretch of the imagination, but should they win three titles in a row, it's fully deserved. It's just a little bit boring, but they shouldn't care.

Not bad for a drinks company.

It has to be Red Bull's most impressive season to date as just when one could think they hit the development ceiling with this concept of a car and the others caught up with them, they pull ahead again at the end of the fourth year of the current aero regime. Despite new tests and clarifications in technical areas where they found performance advantages keep being issued, they just get on with it and continue to show there's no silver bullet to their success. There are some stones thrown at them every now and then that they 'over-spend' or 'run dodgy parts' but no substantial evidence has been provided that they're the bad boys in town while the rest are saints.

Red Bull's technical team have the best developmental record under this set of regulations and a driver dominant when the car is there. They lose their trick devices but adapt. Operationally flawless. Perfect pitstops. Intra-team harmony. Reliability failings only coming from Renault.

Not a fan of the team by any stretch of the imagination, but should they win three titles in a row, it's fully deserved. It's just a little bit boring, but they shouldn't care.

Absolutely. But in any other team threads, fans would show up to celebrate a dominant win. I find it a bit sad, I don't have anything against them.

Korea should be V3.2 of their exhaust layout, quite a development speed. They clearly struggled to get a refined concept to work as they intended but it is possibly the most performing solution in the framework of those regs. It is interesting that Sauber brought their old concept back which was the only other one which also had a ramp but of course not the two S-Ducts.

There's something I don't understand about the supposed tyre problems in the last few Korea laps. The race engineer was going on and on about how they front tyre is going to be worn down to the canvas soon, and that sudden failure might follow.

However, it was reported that the Pirellis combine fast degradation with safety by having 2 layers of compound. The outer one is soft and degrades fast, and once it is gone, the lap times hit the cliff because the car runs on the hard inner compound, which does not allow for competitive lap times but is still safe to run on. This inner compound is there precisely to prevent sudden failure caused by the tyre wearing down to the canvas.

In Korea though, the RBR cars supposedly were in danger of running on the canvas but their lap times never hit the cliff. I don't understand how this can be, and I don't recall that it happened before on Pirellis either. IIRC cars always hit the cliff and either were forced to pit for pace reasons, or if the race was about to finish they could run a few laps to the finish line at greatly reduced speed, but without any dangers of sudden failure being mentioned on the radio.

I'm sure the tyre chat was to stop SV from going flat out unnecessarily. We've heard it time and time again from Rocky his race engineer, he seems to wet his pants with every purple sector after the last pit stop.

There's something I don't understand about the supposed tyre problems in the last few Korea laps. The race engineer was going on and on about how they front tyre is going to be worn down to the canvas soon, and that sudden failure might follow.

However, it was reported that the Pirellis combine fast degradation with safety by having 2 layers of compound. The outer one is soft and degrades fast, and once it is gone, the lap times hit the cliff because the car runs on the hard inner compound, which does not allow for competitive lap times but is still safe to run on. This inner compound is there precisely to prevent sudden failure caused by the tyre wearing down to the canvas.

In Korea though, the RBR cars supposedly were in danger of running on the canvas but their lap times never hit the cliff. I don't understand how this can be, and I don't recall that it happened before on Pirellis either. IIRC cars always hit the cliff and either were forced to pit, or could run a few laps to the finish line at greatly reduced speed, but without any dangers of sudden failure being mentioned on the radio.

So how did this happen in Korea for RBR?

To be honest with you I think Rocky was just exaggerating to stop Vettel from doing Japan like banzai laps in the end (by the way Vettel's fastest lap of the race was the final lap). Sure there was some concern, since the final stint was the longest one, but I 'm not sure they even have the tech to measure tyre wear accurately while the car is running.

There's something I don't understand about the supposed tyre problems in the last few Korea laps. The race engineer was going on and on about how they front tyre is going to be worn down to the canvas soon, and that sudden failure might follow.

However, it was reported that the Pirellis combine fast degradation with safety by having 2 layers of compound. The outer one is soft and degrades fast, and once it is gone, the lap times hit the cliff because the car runs on the hard inner compound, which does not allow for competitive lap times but is still safe to run on. This inner compound is there precisely to prevent sudden failure caused by the tyre wearing down to the canvas.

In Korea though, the RBR cars supposedly were in danger of running on the canvas but their lap times never hit the cliff. I don't understand how this can be, and I don't recall that it happened before on Pirellis either. IIRC cars always hit the cliff and either were forced to pit for pace reasons, or if the race was about to finish they could run a few laps to the finish line at greatly reduced speed, but without any dangers of sudden failure being mentioned on the radio.

So how did this happen in Korea for RBR?

If they had hit the cliff they could have lose 4-5 seconds or more per single lap to Alonso who could have then overtake the RBs. I think this was their concern.

If they had hit the cliff they could have lose 4-5 seconds or more per single lap to Alonso who could have then overtake the RBs. I think this was their concern.

But that was my point, I expected them to hit the cliff long before the canvas. If their concern was to hit the cliff, they could have said so, I thought. And after a bit of reflection I'm not sure that the explanations in the posts by sosidge and engel really work: surely Vettel knows that he can't hit the canvas before the cliff (if my understanding is correct), so why would Rocky try to sell that to him?

But that was my point, I expected them to hit the cliff long before the canvas. If their concern was to hit the cliff, they could have said so, I thought. And after a bit of reflection I'm not sure that the explanations in the posts by sosidge and engel really work: surely Vettel knows that he can't hit the canvas before the cliff (if my understanding is correct), so why would Rocky try to sell that to him?

I think that's what they meant by saying that they feared to run out of rubber.

I think that's what they meant by saying that they feared to run out of rubber.

But they specifically emphasized the danger of wearing down to canvas with possible sudden failure when this happens. My point is that I'd expect them to hit the cliff first, but they didn't and kept up the pace until the very last sector.

But they specifically emphasized the danger of wearing down to canvas with possible sudden failure when this happens. My point is that I'd expect them to hit the cliff first, but they didn't and kept up the pace until the very last sector.

It's possible that only part of the tyre was being worn away and exposing the canvas (say, the inner side of the front right tyre). I don't know if we would see the "cliff" behavior if that were the case, with only part of one tyre seeing the degradation, but it would still have the high probability of catastrophic failure the engineer was talking about.

It's possible that only part of the tyre was being worn away and exposing the canvas (say, the inner side of the front right tyre). I don't know if we would see the "cliff" behavior if that were the case, with only part of one tyre seeing the degradation, but it would still have the high probability of catastrophic failure the engineer was talking about.

As usually well-written by Scarbs, a guy which has a deep understanding about the physics, technology and rules of the sport.

From what I’ve seen and heard of the Red Bull DDRS I would suggest that when the DRS flap opens, the duct feeds vertically down to blow through a slot underneath the endplate\beam wing junction. This would stall the outer tip of the beam wing and the resulting vortices would be broken up reducing drag for a small, but useful top speed increase. Red bull have just a few races left to exploit this technology, as rules ban the use of DRs having an effect on ducts within the rear wing. But as we have seen so front this year, having pole position and managing the race and tyre wear from the front is a strong strategy. Having DDRS will only aid the team in qualifying with almost not performance penalties from having the system fitted.

It would be interesting to know if Scarbs has seen the picture showing possibly two seperate ducts feeding into each endplate. The upper one, named 1 by Jovcar is clearly better suited to capture a good amount of airflow while the number 2 is less so. If there are four seperate ducts they might well blow four seperate areas for maximum effect, as Scarbs suggested.

Its possible Red Bull evaluated blowing this area and discounted it. It’s also possible that a system could blow both the upper rear wing and then beam wing [the external wing tips H2H] simultaneously for the maximum effect.

While there are still only 4 races to go it is quite possible that we will see a further evolution of RBR DDRS. They tested it first in Monza and seemed to test a new variant in Suzuka.

Looking at the Red bull wing at the past few races show only one sign of holes under the top rear wing, but these were only seen in one practice run in Japan and have not been seen again.

The last races have shown how that a good Q3 is usually the key to victory but that also helps a lot to stay out of the biggest troubles for the first turns. The tyre management has already been discussed to death. So I would not be surprised to see some DDRS tweaks with even only 2 races to go.

Red Bull did not start the season that strongly but they have learned a lot about the car as they worked through its problems and the effect of that is being seen now.

The front wing they introduced in Singapore two races ago was a decent step forward for the whole car. It fully focuses on improving the overall airflow - particularly to the underfloor, where the most efficient downforce is created.

Then there is the new 'double DRS' system, which takes the overtaking aid fitted to all the cars a step further by operating on the lower rear beam wing as well as the rear-wing main plane. It means they are able to run more downforce but still maintain a fairly decent straight-line speed with the DRS open in qualifying. It also helps get the tyres working better in qualifying, although it only works for them in the race if they qualify at the front. That's because you haven't got the straight-line speed you would need in a racing situation, but you have the extra downforce to help look after the tyres and give a bit of extra lap time to get away at the beginning of the race, as we saw happen in Korea.

Red Bull also changed the rear suspension geometry a few races ago to reduce the degradation of the rear tyres.

They have put more camber-change on it. That means they can run the car with less static camber, so the tyre has a bigger contact patch for better traction out of slow corners but the high-speed performance is not affected because the necessary camber change is induced by the suspension movement.

In Korea, they also had a new sidepod arrangement at the rear of the car. Normally, there is quite a big duct parallel to the floor which feeds the air into the diffuser to help re-attach the airflow through the central part of the diffuser. They have changed that a bit, reducing the size of the duct, which means they have a better 'coke-bottle' shape to the bodywork at the back of the car, improving the airflow inside the rear tyres. The new DRS system is influential in this because the way it interacts with the rear aerodynamics means they don't have to feed as much airflow through the floor.

It is a lot of small changes, but if you're looking for one big one, it's the front wing, which has made the airflow over the whole car work differently.

Kind of wrap-up of RB8 development for the last few weeks. All about details as Horner said.

Even Jaguar through the association with Ford and the famous Cosworth, and the numerous legendary ford and jaguar motor cars to grace the road - naturally at the time the team deserved and had more fans... even if it was cut-price penny-saving operation after board review of Irvine excesses whilst DM is able to continue with a quasi open-chequebook--albeit that the team budget's is now greater assisted by FOM and sponsor generosity and there is supposedly less Red Bull money compared to racing as a mediocre midpack team with Ferrari engines blowing up all the time.

I would not exactly call those various updates details, but it is of course always important to point out that in the end it is all about how it fits together as a package. Nice catch at the BBC website.

Coanda Exhausts is another nice piece of Scarbs which deals with 2012 three big developing paths of the exhaust layout. Keep in mind that RBR has a unique system which is only partly related to the old-new Sauber one, so one might count also four different approaches.

Lastly the RB8 had a revised rear suspension, this appear to be formed of a new top wishbone and upright. The upper wishbone being shorter, necessitating a longer extension at the top of the upright, then the upright also repositions the brake calliper into a 6 o’clock position, having been rotated slight towards the rear on the pre-Valencia spec. The shorter upper arm will increase camber change with suspension movement, some thing likely to generate more heat in the tyre. With other teams also making suspension alterations it appears the enigmatic 2012 Pirelli tyres are starting to be understood.

Even Jaguar through the association with Ford and the famous Cosworth, and the numerous legendary ford and jaguar motor cars to grace the road - naturally at the time the team deserved and had more fans... even if it was cut-price penny-saving operation after board review of Irvine excesses whilst DM is able to continue with a quasi open-chequebook--albeit that the team budget's is now greater assisted by FOM and sponsor generosity and there is supposedly less Red Bull money compared to racing as a mediocre midpack team with Ferrari engines blowing up all the time.

Even Jaguar through the association with Ford and the famous Cosworth, and the numerous legendary ford and jaguar motor cars to grace the road - naturally at the time the team deserved and had more fans... even if it was cut-price penny-saving operation after board review of Irvine excesses whilst DM is able to continue with a quasi open-chequebook--albeit that the team budget's is now greater assisted by FOM and sponsor generosity and there is supposedly less Red Bull money compared to racing as a mediocre midpack team with Ferrari engines blowing up all the time.

Even Jaguar through the association with Ford and the famous Cosworth, and the numerous legendary ford and jaguar motor cars to grace the road - naturally at the time the team deserved and had more fans... even if it was cut-price penny-saving operation after board review of Irvine excesses whilst DM is able to continue with a quasi open-chequebook--albeit that the team budget's is now greater assisted by FOM and sponsor generosity and there is supposedly less Red Bull money compared to racing as a mediocre midpack team with Ferrari engines blowing up all the time.

Red Bull’s dire warnings via radio were interesting as on one level they seemed to serve as a message to Pirelli, a kind of live lobbying, perhaps for different compound choices, perhaps for future direction and specification.

There were concerns with graining of the tyres and also with wear on the outer shoulder of the front tyres in Korea and several teams experienced it, with Red Bull the most extreme example; Sebastian Vettel was ordered to be careful in the final laps as his tyres were close to the limit.

This was a curious episode, which has yet to be fully explained. Pirelli were not aware of any issues on the tyres and although it was getting marginal, there was apparently still some rubber on the tyre when they were inspected at the end of the race.

I don't get people's resentment toward Red Bull. People only want car manufacturer teams? Or teams aren't allowed to get their funding from sponsors who are so commited that the team is named after them? Did people feel the same way about Benetton? TBH I'm very thankful for Red Bull's presence in F1. They're not my team, but I consider F1 to be a million times more interesting the last 4 years than it was during Ferrari vs McL where if one team had distinctly better car the season was nearly foregone conclusion.

It should also smooth out the downforce differential between the on/off throttle position. With the less aggressive and more indirect exhaust blowing as well as the residual of engine maps the car handles more predictable.

An older post of mine. Note that for Scarbs the main reason for it's addition is the better engine driveability. Keep in mind that the new complex exhaust piping cost Lotus power compared to the former simple straight solution.

The F1 technical article described this as a Helmholtz resonator, however I think some get a bit sidetracked by the acoustic effect. Why?

So far we have seen three exhaust chambers on three different engines and not a single one had a visible bottleneck. Obviously they could have hidden it, but this could compromise cooling with the air racing through the sidpods unable to reach the internal tubing.

2) Even if he emps are low enough at that point and the metal ductile enough to transfer the heat outwards it begs the question why one should go to such lenghts to hide it. The other engine manufactors with thei engineering ressources should have little trouble to map and test the effects of various solutions.

3) The recent F1 exhaust chambers are a novelty in the sport and only appeared after the EBD became a key performance differentiator. They are also unlike most Helmholtz resonator mounted (rather obviously) not at the intake but downstream of the combustion.

-----

So if we take the chamber as weak pneumatic spring and pressure storage we can roughly devide the whole internal process following the modulation of the throttle be a driver as phase 1 ("downforce-lag"), phase 2 ("power-lag") and phase 3 ("downforce-boost"). Those phases can cycle quickly in slow turns, depending on throttle use (and engine mappings) on the car.

2) Phase 2: (full throttle) the high pressure exhaust gas has compressed the air of the chamber as much as possible. Only small Helmholtz effects due to the a weak force H. ( A strong effect would also clearly not help in fast turns!) Small loss of power.

3) Phase 3. (no throttle) the compressed air flows out of the chamber into the low pressure area of the exit tube. No sudden loss of downforce at the rear, smoother transition between the downforce levels.

The key to the importance is not so much the absolute loss or gain of downforce but the smoothing of the exhaust behaviour. So instead of getting all EBD downforce with full throttle and then zero with the foot off the pedal the chamber helps to blend the phases. Overall this effect must be quite worth it as they might give up some power, with phase 2 going on all along the straights and fast turns. Basically if RBR is ready to race it at Silverstone we should see it everywhere with the potential exception of Monza. Heat can not be a big problem considering the packaging right within the airstream flowing through the sidepods....

To give an idea the cycle might look like 222-3-1-2-3-1-2-3-1-222, showing a driver going from a straight into a slow corner, using more then once the throttle and accelerating out of it.

That's the nitty-gritty of the wording, and Red Bull's interpretation was accepted as valid by the stewards. But why on earth would a team be trying to reduce the torque of an engine? It's all about trying to find a way of blowing the diffuser under the new regulations. If you can get the map to arrange the ignition timing so that with the accelerator pedal full to the floor, at a certain rev range the engine's throttle bodies are pumping air through the combustion chamber and exhaust after the mixture has already been ignited, then you will sacrifice some potential torque but you will gain flow through the exhausts which are positioned to direct the flow to the downforce-inducing rear brake ducts and the sides of the diffuser.

This development will have been designed to complement the 'Helmholz exhaust chamber' introduced by the team at the previous race of Silverstone. This is a cylindrical enclosed chamber within the exhaust arrangement. The diameter and design of the pipes are such that with the gases flowing through there as the driver is on the throttle, the pressure builds and fills the chamber. When the driver releases the throttle under braking or into a bend, the pressure reduces and this allows the gases that have accumulated in the chamber to be released - giving some additional exhaust flow to the downforce-producing brake ducts and diffuser and thereby a measure of 'off-throttle blowing'.

So with the Helmholz chamber giving a brief moment of off-throttle blowing and the engine map enhancing the on-throttle blowing, the RB8 will have received an all-round increase in downforce at only a small cost in engine performance.

Indeed which is also what gives RBR a sustained advantaged in the aero department.

I don't know if it is sustained, but certainly it seems that it is the areo department working best in this F1. It is not all about Newey, even if it is a lot about him, but a great staff with great management and the proper ressources.

To be honest I don't think we can talk already a lot about the 2014 areo rules but those are hardly set in stone and we could still see massive changes. In the end sometimes somthing was banned and rules were changed (or interpretated) with no notice at all. However it seems that we are getting low noses which should disrupt the current aerodynamic knowledge. On a sidenote Newey was perhaps the designer most responsible to make the high nose the dominant standard, so it is a bit of symbol for the F1 rule makers quest to tighten up the creativity of the smart brains of F1.

With the TERS system its possible energy harvested from the turbocharger could be reused to keep the turbo spinning. Again we cannot see the TERS MGU in this CAD image. TERS will work via a similar method the KERS, a Motor Generator Unit (MGU) will harvest energy from the exhaust by sitting inline with the turbo charger shaft. Its will generate power from the spinning turbo and will be able to store and discharge that energy. In some cases the team will reuse the TERS energy into the main KERS boost (directly or via a battery) or reuse the TERS energy back into the turbo. In February’s issue of Race Engine Technology Magazine (RET), there was an interview with Simon by the Editor, Ian Bamsey. Simon commented to RET that P.U.R.E. will use TERS to pass power to the KERS MGU to power the engine. Using a battery as a buffer when too much energy is being harvesteddischarged.

Particularly relevant to recent F1 Aero design the exhaust will be a single outlet exiting from the centre of the top body. The rules still allow for two outlets, so perhaps a split in the exhaust and repositioning to gain some better aero effect could be adopted. However the 2014 rules were drafted before the current restrictions on exhaust position and will need to be rewritten to account for the central turbo charger regulation.

Even if we have two exhaut pipes still able to create a fluid skirt around the edges of the diffusor and somewhat above it the combination of a turbocharger and TERS mgiht reduce the kinetic and thus areodynamic potential of the exhaust gas. It will depend a lot on the specific rules and the wording and how smart people will read them. In theory the ERS (and some clever engine mapping) could be used in slow corners to accelerate the turbine, sucking a great amount of air and powering it with the engine while providing very little torque. It would also not fall under the 100kg/h rule if the rpm remain under the limit. We will see.

Take also a close look at the center of the beam wing - there doesn't seem to be a big opening, but it is difficult to say. All in all two of the most likely positions get blown, the edges of the beam wing.

That it is a key area can be seen from this Valencia beam wing. Notice also the central slot of said wing. This shows that the edge plays a considerably enough role in the aero efficiency to get considerable attention and ressources and now some good blowing.

BTW the excellent Renault press release about engine mapping does help to understand the whole complex issue. The whole is certainly more then the sums of the parts, but in F1 terms this means even more attention to all the details:

“In its simplest form, the engine torque map is a theoretical model of the engine. It represents the torque output of the engine for a given engine throttle position and engine speed. In this respect it appears outwardly similar to a driver torque pedal map, the only change being the look-up against engine throttle position instead of the driver’s pedal. However, in reality, the differences are far more complex and wide reaching. From this map, you know for any given speed or throttle position that you should produce a certain amount of engine torque,” says Renault Sport F1 engine engineer David Lamb. “We then use that reference map to ensure the engine is behaving as it should out on the circuit. We measure the actual engine torque with an on-car sensor, and when you overlay this with the value predicted by the torque map, you shouldn’t notice any large differences. If you have a hesitation or a drivability issue, you will see it clearly because the measured torque will not match the reference torque."

The torque map doesn’t change much over the course of a weekend, or between races. “Under the new technical directive, issued between the German and Hungarian Grands Prix, you can’t really change the maps that much over a weekend or between races. It’s like a fingerprint of the engine. There will be subtle differences between the teams due their respective air boxes and exhausts, which will slightly change the form of the map. Prior to this directive, we would change the torque map freely to suit the climatic conditions. For example, the engines will produce nearly 10% less torque at Sao Paulo than they will this weekend in Korea due to Sao Paulo’s high altitude. By changing the torque map to the prevailing conditions the engine response will feel the same to the driver across the season. Nowadays we have to request this torque map change from the FIA, and fully justify our reasoning.”

As well as ensuring the engine behaves as it should, the map is also used to improve the driveability of the car for the driver. “When the driver lifts off the pedal the engine can be either fired in four cylinders or fully cut, depending on the level of overrun support he requires,” explains David. “When the driver goes back on the pedal from full ignition cut, you need to inject more fuel than usual to ‘wet’ the engine. Inject too little or too much and you will have a torque deficit from target, which can cause a hesitation and a loss of lap time. The initial torque demand will generally be met with only four cylinders, as you’d rather save a bit of fuel and have four cylinders firing strongly using a more open throttle than have eight coming into life rather weakly with a relatively closed throttle.

"When the torque demand exceeds that which can be met with just four cylinders, the remaining cylinders need to be fired. These will also require ‘wetting’. At this point you also have to close the throttles at a rate which coincides with the final four coming back into life – this is the tricky bit! Get it right and the driver should feel nothing across the transition, just a change in engine pitch. In all cases, the torque map is used in conjunction with other settings to govern both the fuelling requirements and throttle position."

The engine torque map is used for a multitude of other processes, such as the pit limiter, rev limiter and downshift control. “The engine torque map is without doubt one of the most important calibrations in the SECU. It really is the reference point. When the driver lifts of the pedal, it’s the engine torque map that decides by how much we close the throttles. When he goes back on power, it’s the engine torque map that stipulates to what point they open. It all works off that map.

The underlined part is interesting considering the controversy which had obviously ( as Seb would say) also to do with the blown diffusor. If know a bit about F1 the focus on driveability does not surprise you. While some F1 fans seem to adore the heroic part of drivers fighting their cars and driving "over the limit" in fact it is all about getting as much usable performance out of the car. In todays sport it is no surprise that horsepower gets readily exchanged for better driveability be it through increased predictable downforce or other matters.